Thorpe’s Play on Words

Lidia Thorpe’s controversial actions and statements have sparked a significant debate over her eligibility and conduct as a senator. Her deliberate misstatement during her Oath of Allegiance, as she claims, has raised concerns about the legitimacy of her pledge to bear true allegiance to the King, which is a constitutional requirement for all Australian MPs and senators.

Thorpe’s remarks, especially the play on words (“her hairs, not her heirs”), demonstrate her ongoing stance against the monarchy and the system it represents. While she has been vocal about her opposition to the Crown, her admission that she made an invalid affirmation raises legal and ethical questions. According to the Australian Constitution, an MP or senator must swear or affirm allegiance to the monarch as a condition of taking office. If her claim of making an invalid affirmation is upheld, it could potentially render her swearing-in incomplete or invalid.

In terms of what can lawfully be done to dismiss her from the Senate, the options are limited and require clear legal grounds. Typically, a senator can only be disqualified if they breach Section 44 of the Constitution, which outlines various disqualifications, such as having a foreign allegiance, being a bankrupt, or being convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment of one year or more. A failure to take a valid Oath of Allegiance might not directly fit into these disqualification categories, but it could be argued that it constitutes a breach of constitutional requirements. If so, her eligibility to serve could be challenged.

The Coalition’s move to seek legal advice on this matter is significant. Should the advice indicate that her invalid affirmation compromises her position, Thorpe could face legal challenges to her eligibility. This could lead to a High Court case, as only the Court of Disputed Returns has the power to disqualify a senator. However, it’s not certain that her admission alone would be enough to trigger such a process unless it can be proven that she deliberately misled the Parliament in a way that affects her eligibility.

Politically, this issue underscores the tension between republican sentiments, especially among Indigenous rights advocates like Thorpe, and Australia’s constitutional framework. Thorpe has positioned herself as a staunch critic of the monarchy, and her actions reflect her broader political stance. Whether this is viewed as an act of defiance or as a breach of her constitutional duty depends largely on one’s perspective on the monarchy and the role of senators in upholding the constitution.